Proportions of blacks subject to 'felon disfranchisement', by state

[ProgressiveEconomist]

Proportions of blacks subject to 'felon disfranchisement': state rankings

The American Bar Association and many other legal groups have called for the complete elimination of "felon disfranchisement", which takes away the votes of shocking percentages of African-Americans in this country, the most reliably Democratic group in every election. IMO, revision of the "Help America Vote Act" must bar federal election funding from any state that engages in "felon disfranchisement" after convicts have completed their sentences. This could be done easily by majority vote of both houses of Congress for a list of MANDATORY national standards in national and statewide elections.

Since the vast majority of people incarcerated in this country are males, roughly DOUBLE the percentages below for proportions of African-American males who cannot vote.

Also, for the likely rough impact of these percentages on last Tuesday's statewide races, click through to "voter survey results" at http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006//pages/results/states/TN (substitute the state postal code of your choice for 'TN', but be aware only key races had exit polls.)

For example, while the proportions of white male and white female voters in the Ford-Corker race were roughly equal, black females outnumbered black males by half, or 3 percentage points of the statewide vote. That 3 percentage points was exactly the margin of Corker's "victory".

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From http://www.restorethevote.org/files/publications/RI's%20Shrinking%20Black%20Electorate.pdf :

States Ranked by Percent of African-American Population Ineligible to Vote Due to Felony Disfranchisement

50 24.9 Iowa
49 24.7 New_Mexico
48 18.9 Nebraska
47 17.4 Kentucky
46 17.1 Nevada
45 16.1 Virginia
44 16.0 Florida
43 14.3 Washington
42 14.2 Wyoming
41 14.0 Alabama
40 13.9 Delaware
39 12.9 Arizona
38 12.1 Rhode_Island
37 11.3 Mississippi
36 10.8 Wisconsin
35 10.3 Georgia
34 9.2 Texas
33 9.2 New_Jersey
32 8.4 Minnesota
31 8.3 Oklahoma
30 8.3 Connecticut
29 8.1 Maryland
28 7.9 Arkansas
27 7.2 Missouri
26 6.6 Tennessee
25 6.2 California
24 5.7 Alaska
23 4.6 Colorado
22 4.2 Kansas
21 4.0 South_Carolina
20 4.0 Idaho
19 3.7 New_York
18 3.5 North_Carolina
17 3.1 Oregon
16 3.0 Louisiana
15 2.9 Michigan
14 2.9 Ohio
13 2.8 Pennsylvania
12 2.7 Illinois
11 2.6 West_Virginia
10 2.6 Indiana
09 2.4 South_Dakota
08 1.5 Massachusetts
07 1.5 New_Hampshire
06 1.2 Montana
05 0.8 Hawaii
04 0.7 North_Dakota
03 0.7 Utah
02 0.0 Maine
01 0.0 Vermont

[JeffR]

1. This is a huge priority to sort out

Thanks to Maine and Vermont for their enlightenment. Now something needs to be done about the other 48, urgently. That these are votes that would potentially go to Democrats is entirely beside the point. This is a matter of civil rights, pure and simple.

[3waygeek]

2. These numbers don't sound right...

Iowa, the worst state in the above ranking, automatically restores voting rights once a felon's sentence has been completed.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

8. Thanks for the link. But is Vilsack's 11/05 exec order retroactive?

Was the court ruling appealed? Has the exec order been implemented? Did the Legislature overturn the Governor's order? Were previously-convicted "felons" sent forms for automatic restoration of their voting rights?

There's a lot of politicking on this issue leading up to every election, but when the dust settles, most often NOTHING has changed on the ground.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

3. I don't think letting criminals vote is a good thing.

I've heard all sorts of accusations of blacks who *aren't* felons being forbidden from voting, partly as a result of racial profiling - Florida 2000 being the most important example, IIRC - and I think that's something it's important to crack down on hard.

But I don't think that letting genuine felons vote is desirable. If you're convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude, I don't think you should be allowed to vote until you've finished your sentence.

[AlamoDemoc]

5. There should be debate about whether voting is a Right or Privilege (n/t)

[BlooInBloo]

23. None of the above. It's an obligation.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

38. It's a right, but it's a right that can be forfeited.

All members of a society of sound judgement (i.e. not the insane or children) should have a right to vote, but criminals are effectively "opting out" of society - the basis of society is agreement to live by its rules - and should have that right revoked until such time as they're "readmitted" I think.

[wuushew]

39. Voting provides extremely useful information by which to govern

why would we deny voting to felons yet still count them in the federal census? Don't both activities provide information by which we run the government?

You act if voting is some sort of recreational activity for which is clamored in prison. Do you find it comparable to tv privileges or exercise time to be doled out on the merits of prisoner behavior?

We don't deny access to books or the postal service for the incarcerated so what is the logic of denying the vote? Is your true fear that criminal element will succeed in modifying the severity of the criminal justice system through the voting process?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

40. Voting doesn't inform, it mandates.

Voting *doesn't* just provide information, it provides instructions. I have no problem whatsoever with surveying felons to find out what they want the government to do, but I don't think their wishes should be binding on it in the way that those of law-abiding citizens are.

I don't know what the effects of allowing the "criminal element" (is that different to "criminals" - I don't support removing the vote from "people I consider likely to commit crimes" or "people who I suspect have committed crimes but haven't been convicted", which are the only two categories that could go into "criminal element" but not "criminals", so I favour the latter term) to vote would be - I don't know if they'd vote radically differently to the populace as a whole or not, or in which way, and I doubt if even in America there are enough of them to change the results of an election very often; I'm opposed to it on the general principles I outlined in my last post, not because of the effects.

[wuushew]

42. What about the racism angle brought up in the original post?

If all men are created equally with the ability to commit crime then why are so many African Americans incarcerated? For every black man in prison there is one less voter to represent that group's interests on the outside.

I would argue that addressing the symptoms and causes of racist polices trumps the "justice" of not allowing convicted felons to vote.

Also many in prison are later exonerated of their guilt. How is societal utility maximized by the incorrect curtailing of political representation? I would argue an innocent man would be more highly motivated to vote than a true felon.

If the innocent would have voted on the outside and the true felon not while in prison, what has been lost by extending him the vote? We must always be open to the possibilities of our own errors. To arrogantly assume that findings of guilt are concrete and immutable only stokes our own hubris and prevents evolution in the pursuit of true justice.

[Alexander]

6. What if you get your rights restored many years afterwards?

Given that smoking a single joint is a felony conviction in a lot of states, and authorities tend to push the heavy penalties on minorities, I see no reason why someone who has completed their sentence and otherwise rejoined society in a safe and legal manner shouldn't be allowed to vote.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

12. "... should not be allowed ... until you've finished yr sentence"

Then the only "too liberal" states for you are Maine and Vermont.

There is a scale of disfranchisement in state laws. From the same source as the percentages in the OP:

State Disfranchisement Laws

LEVEL 6
Disfranchisement for all felony convictions, no automatic restoration:
AL, FL, IA, KY, NE, VA

LEVEL 5
Permanent disfranchisement for some felony convictions:
AZ, DE, MD, MS, NV, TN, WA, WY

LEVEL 4
Voting restored after completion of sentence, including parole and probation:
AK, AR, GA, ID, KS, LA, MN, MO, NJ, NM, NC, OK, RI, SC, TX, WV, WI

LEVEL 3
Voting restored after release from incarceration and completion of parole (probationers may vote):
CA, CO, CT, NY

LEVEL 2
Voting restored after release from prison:
HI, IL, IN, MA, MI, MT, NH, ND, OH, OR, PA, SD, UT

LEVEL 1
No disfranchisement for felony convictions:
ME, VT

[Donald Ian Rankin]

15. Levels 2 and probably 3 are, too.

I think level 4 is the right one. The point at which you should become free to vote is the one at which you have paid your debt to society. If you're still being treated differently because you haven't completed that then you shouldn't be voting.

On the other hand, I think 5 and 6 are going to far. I think the only offences for which permanent disenfranchisement is merited but life in prison or special measures isn't (mass murderers shouldn't be voting, but they should stay in gaol, so it doesn't arrise) are those specifically involving voting fraud.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

16. Where voting is a privilege, only the privileged may vote

I don't understand your position. What reasonable relationship does a citizen's inalenable right to cast a ballot in a domocratic election bear to any possible crime of which the citizen may have been convicted?

Compare barring 'felons' from voting to barring them from owning firearms. If a persons has been commmitted of using a firearm in a crime, then it seems reasonable to bar future access to firearms, to prevent temptation from resulting in another crime. That makes some sense. Felon disfranchisement IMO does not. The one thing has NOTHING to do with the other.

I'd rather see public policies that try to re-attach convicted criminals to family and society than purely punitive measures which further break already tenuous bonds to peaceful and productive citizenship, for no reason except partisan political Republican advantage or outright racism.

History prof Alexander Keyssar and others have traced the EXPLICITLY racist origin of 'felon disfranchisement' in the post-Reconstruction South. (See my post #17 below). Why do you want to continue to enforce this historic vestige of the holocaust of slavery?

[jody]

18. When a felon's civil rights are restored, her/his right to keep and bear arms is also

restored unless RKBA is specifically excluded.

http://www.ncids.org/Defender%20Training/2005%20Spring%20Conference/Federal%20Gun%20Law-Paper.pdf

10. Can a felon ever regain the right to own a gun by having his civil rights restored? Theoretically yes, but practically no. 18 U.S.C. §§ 921(a)(20) and (a)(33)(B)(ii) say that “(a)ny conviction which has been expunged, or set aside or for which a person has been pardoned or has had civil rights restored shall not be considered a conviction for purposes of” the federal gun ban. To determine whether someone’s civil right to own a gun has been restored, federal courts “look to the law of the jurisdiction of conviction . . . and consider the jurisdiction's entire body of law.” United States v. O’Neal, 180 F.3d 115, 119 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 980 (1999).

[ProgressiveEconomist]

20. Then the revision to HAVA should include a waiver of restoration of

rights to own guns. That's no problem for most who advocate elimination of 'felon disfranchisement'

[jody]

33. I disagree with the exclusion of RKBA. The right of self-defense is a basic civil right so why

do you want to prevent someone from using the most effective, efficient tools to exercise that right?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

37. Two errors there, I think.

Firstly, the assertion that the right to self defence is absolute.
Secondly, the assertion that self defence and gun ownership are the same thing.

No-one has an absolute right to self-defence - I shouldn't be allowed to let of a nuke to stop you mugging me. I should not be allowed to take measures in self defence whose cost is considerably greater than their benefit; the cost of allowing felons to own guns is considerable (more gun crime) and the benefit very limited indeed (the efficiency of guns for self defence is *massively* overestimated by the gun lobby).


Gun "rights" should be restored considerably more gingerly than voting rights, if ever - certainly more serious offences like theft, violent crimes etc should disbar you from ever owning any kind of firearm ever again - because the cost of getting it wrong is so heavy.

[jody]

41. SCOTUS says government is not obligated to protect an individual unless she/he is in custody.

SCOTUS also says government has the authority to draft citizens into the military and force he/she to fight and die for government and in an extreme case to execute she/he if they refuse.

Before the colonies were united, Pennsylvania said in its constitution, A DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE INHABITANTS OF THE COMMONWEALTH OR STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA dated 28 Sept. 1776, "That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and inalienable rights, amongst which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety."

Pennsylvania also said "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."

Later, PA ratified the BOR on 10 March 1790 and with contemporaneous knowledge of the Second Amendment, PA modified its constitution that took effect on 2 Sept. 1790 to say “The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.”

As an inalienable right it is impossible for PA citizens to give the right of self-defense away when they ratified our Constitution or when they ratified the BOR. PA citizens acknowledged that fact by retaining the right of self-defense in their constitution when they modified it just five months after they ratified the BOR.

Of all the states, Pennsylvania was the first to clearly define the right to defend self, property, and state and said it was one of the “natural, inherent and inalienable rights”. In PA’s section on Rights, it clarified that right by saying “That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state”.

NOTE: SCOTUS took PA’s “right” to defend the state and made it an “obligation”. Unfortunately SCOTUS has not taken PA’s “right” to defend self and made it an “obligation”.

I infer from your post that (a) you believe government has the authority to force me to bear arms to defend government and if necessary die for government, an artificial creation, but (b) you believe government is not obligated to protect me and has the authority to prevent me from keeping and bearing arms to protect myself.

With what part of that statement do you disagree?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

45. Do you mean "has" or "should have"?

In America, the government *has* the authority to penalise you in any constitutional fashion it sees fit for refusing conscription, I believe - that believe has nothing to do with my opinions, just my understanding of the constitution.

I don't think any goverment *should*, or should be allowed to, conscript its citizens, and that it should be banned by the constitution.

I believe the government should take reasonable measures to protect you; I'm not sure it's worth putting that in the constitution or not, given how vague it is. But whether or not it has to, the American government currently *does* protect you; not perfectly, obviously, but to a considerable degree.

I don't think the American government *has* the authority to prevent you from bearing arms, sadly; the second ammendment doesn't appear to have much leeway in it. I do think it *ought* to have, and exercise strictly that authority, though.

Owning guns should be a priviledge, not a right.

[jody]

48. I used “has” four times. To which of those times are you referring?

SCOTUS also says government has the authority to draft citizens into the military and force he/she to fight and die for government and in an extreme case to execute she/he if they refuse.

NOTE: SCOTUS took PA’s “right” to defend the state and made it an “obligation”. Unfortunately SCOTUS has not taken PA’s “right” to defend self and made it an “obligation”.

I infer from your post that (a) you believe government has the authority to force me bear arms to defend government and if necessary die for government, an artificial creation, but (b) you believe government is not obligated to protect me and has the authority to prevent me from keeping and bearing arms to protect myself.

SCOTUS has said government has the authority to compel citizens to defend the government thereby transforming a "right" to defend the state under Pennsylvania's constitution into an "obligation" to defend the state and approved the state's use of power to enforce that obligation.

SCOTUS has also said government is not obligated to defend an individual, so who is obligated to do that task?

The only one capable of defending an individual at all times is that individual and IMO that person is entitled to keep and bear effective, efficient tools to defend self.

Like other rights, one can choose to defend or not defend them self against criminals. I sincerely believe most people would make some attempt to defend them self against such things as murder but their attempted defense would be meaningless without some type of arms. Today, the most effective, efficient tool for self-defense is a handgun.

My opinion is firmly grounded in the words Pennsylvania used in its constitution of 1776. PA said those rights were inalienable, meaning government can never have the authority to deny citizens those rights. Vermont used almost identical words in its constitution of 1777.

[ismnotwasm]

47. Excellent points.

It's an out of control policy that reinforces institutionalized racism. Period.

People always seem to forget that in our "founding fathers" world, only white, male landowners were allowed to vote.

[eridani]

28. The problem is those states that maintain PERMANENT bans

That is absolutely ridiculous. If you are out, then you have paid your debt and should be a full citizen again. That should be the minimum. Maine and Vermont have polling places right in prisons, and some of the lowest crime rates around. Not every state is going to go that far, of course.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

30. In those states, there are sham procedures for restoration

of voting rights that do not address past disfranchisment of hundreds of thousands and that are not automatic. IMO the easiest way around them would involve MINIMUM national standards in national and statewide elections. Such standards would bar disfranchisement in such a way that states that do better than the minimum (eg, ME and VT) can continue to do so.

IMO no state should be allowed to get federal funds while maintaining lists of "disfranchised felons" for use in purging voters, and minimum simple-language states' "voters' bills of rights" should be mandated for wide advertising that voting is open to every citizen, regardless of prison record.

[wuushew]

31. What about issues of education, taxation or healthcare?

why would any society not want to have a political system that is as representative as possible?

Not allowing felons to vote helps defeat Republican regressive taxation policies how? Are you the sole arbiter of what is a moral issue and what is not?

[ProgressiveEconomist]

32. Finally, a DUer who can count the votes we're missing for lack of

a level playing field, due to 'felon disfranchisement'.

If Blacks consistently voted 90 percent Republican, what would Karl Rove advocate after seeing the figures in the OP? I can't understand why Democrats don't want to win.

Here's the information in the OP combined with Census tallies of the Black population by State:

Proportion of Blacks disfranchised, state, Black population, and Total population
Sorted by Black population

03.7 NY. 3,346,631 19,254,630
16.0 FL.. 2,799,489 17,789,864
10.3 GA. 2,699,790 ..9,072,576
09.2 TX. 2,673,305 22,859,968
06.2 CA. 2,433,756 36,132,147
02.7 IL... 1,927,557 12,763,371
03.5 NC. 1,889,362 ..8,683,242
08.1 MD 1,640,316 ..5,600,388
16.1 VA. 1,504,640 ..7,567,465
03.0 LA. 1,497,351 ..4,523,628
02.9 MI. 1,451,360 10,120,860
02.9 OH 1,368,406 11,464,042
02.8 PA. 1,318,245 12,429,616
09.2 NJ.. 1,261,841 ..8,717,925
04.0 SC. 1,244,582 ..4,255,083
14.0 AL. 1,202,595 ..4,557,808
11.3 MS. 1,079,203 ..2,921,088
06.6 TN.. 1,002,636 ..5,962,959
07.2 MO ..667,456 .5,800,310
02.6 IN ..554,974 .6,271,973
01.5 MA ..438,892 .6,398,743
07.9 AR ..436,974 .2,779,154
08.3 CT ..354,111 .3,510,297
10.8 WI ..330,956 .5,536,201
17.4 KY ..313,247 .4,173,405
08.3 OK ..274,720 .3,547,884
14.3 WA ..221,596 .6,287,759
08.4 MN ..218,455 .5,132,799
12.9 AZ ..215,929 .5,939,292
04.6 CO ..190,895 .4,665,177
17.1 NV ..186,851 .2,414,807
13.9 DE ..174,315 ...843,524
04.2 KS ..161,504 .2,744,687
18.9 NE ...75,598 .1,758,787
24.9 IA ...69,141 .2,966,334
12.1 RI ...66,483 .1,076,189
03.1 OR ...65,583 .3,641,056
02.6 WV ...58,175 .1,816,856
24.7 NM ...46,722 .1,928,384
00.8 HI ...29,594 .1,275,194
05.7 AK ...24,273 ...663,661
00.7 UT ...23,746 .2,469,585
01.5 NH ...12,670 .1,309,940
00.0 ME ....9,946 .1,321,505
04.0 ID ....8,482 .1,429,096
02.4 SD ....6,403 ...775,933
00.7 ND ....4,883 ...636,677
14.2 WY ....4,466 ...509,294
00.0 VT ....3,904 ...623,050
01.2 MT ....3,563 ...935,670

Sources: http://www.census.gov/popest/states/asrh/tables/SC-EST2005-04.csv and http://www.restorethevote.org/files/publications/RI's%20Shrinking%20Black%20Electorate.pdf .

[Time for change]

44. What about drug posession?

That's a felony in many states, and minorities are much more likely to be convicted on these counts than whites. Does drug posession constitute moral turpitude?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

49. I don't think racial disenfranchisement is a good thing.

So either let felons vote, or fix the criminal justice system.

Shit, or get off the pot.

[Alexander]

4. Ironically Maine and Vermont were the 2 states FDR never won

In fact, in 1936, after FDR took every state but those two, he joked "I should have visited Maine" or something like that.

Two states that used to be solidly Republican - back when they were closer to the party of Lincoln - are now the least likely to disenfranchise black voters.

Granted, proportionally speaking, there isn't a huge number of black people in those two states, but still...just interesting.

BTW, I see the state I currently live in, Arizona, is #39 - simply atrocious.

[acmejack]

7. You serve your time you should get to vote.

This 25% of the black population being disenfranchised is bullshit, pure & simple.

[Irreverend IX]

9. There should probably be an appeals process...

Through which felons released from prison could regain their right to vote. It's possible even now, but it involves hiring lawyers and spending tons of money, and it should be a lot easier. I don't think this is a politically prudent issue to pursue right now, though. There would have to be a high-profile news story to convince the public that it's an injustice and not that "OMG Democrats want to give the vote to criminals!"

[ProgressiveEconomist]

14. If not now, WHEN? Is it 'prudent' now to restore Habeas Corpus?

IMO the Right to Vote is every bit as inalienable a right in a real democracy as Habeas Corpus.

[Irreverend IX]

25. "Democrats seek voting rights for criminals" won't play well on the evening news.

That's the long and short of it. It's easy for the RW to attack and average voters won't see how it benefits them. Habeas corpus was a long-held policy the Bushies backed out of only recently, making its restoration a much easier sell to the public. Efforts like easier voting for released prisoners take political capital, and Dems are still in the process of building it up.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

26. "Republicans rely on post-Reconstruction racist voting rules"

is a more accurate headline. See post #17.

Do you want Democrats to keep winning elections, or not?

[Irreverend IX]

27. The average American's brain would burn out...

Before they got two paragraphs into post 17. Yes, it sucks that these laws, whose original basis was bigotry, are still in place, but I don't see an avenue for Dems to re-frame the issue right now. "Democrats are the party of criminals" strikes right at the hindbrains of Middle America (the only functioning parts of their brains, really) while the Reconstruction history lesson will put them right to sleep.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

29. "don't see an avenue for Dems to re-frame the issue right now"

I do. In all likelihood Democrats such as Conyers will hold extensive hearings on problems with the "Help America Vote Act". Organizations that support mandataory national voting standards denying federal election assistance funds to states that practice 'felon disfranchisement' will be happy to supply witnesses.

People from Mississippi, Alabama, Virginia, etc. who were convicted of petty crimes decades ago and have lived exemplary lives since then will be glad to testify about the unfair procedures their states have for restoration of voting rights. Tens and hundreds of thousands are disfranchised in each of those states, while mere dozens have their rights restored annually.

And it is not a matter of "re-framing". It's a matter of FRAMING the issue for the American people. Republicans are pleased with the thoroughly racist status quo and have no reason to bring up the subject of 'felon disfranchisement'. Democratic committee chairmen in both houses of Congress have the floor starting next year, and IMO, if they want to even the playing field against Republicans, will look carefully at the disfranchisement proportions in the OP and take action.

[Eric J in MN]

34. How about addressing felon disenfranchisement this summer?

That way, Democrats aren't leading with it, and it's also 1 1/2 years before the next election.

[sinkingfeeling]

10. Why the hell can't we have one set of federal voting laws? Felons

who have completed their sentences and are not currently under indictment for any other offense, should be able to vote in federal elections.

[jody]

19. Good point. Let states do what they will but Congress controls fed elections. n/t

[ProgressiveEconomist]

21. Congress also controls federal election aid funds, and can

mandate no 'felon disfranchisement' as a mandatory rule in federal and at least STATEWIDE elections. Why should, say, the state of Mississippi be allowed to gin up undemocratic rules that allow two permanently Republican seats in the Senate, while in states truer to real democracy like New York, both parties have a fair chance at Senate seats?

[SoCalDem]

11. It starts with inequality in the justice system..

rich kid caught in a jam...good lawyers, he gets probation

poor kid (very likely to be a black kid in some areas..gets public defender with about 200 cases..he gets "Strike One

after a series of incidents, the rich kid will still be getting "treatment and probation"...and the poor kid will be doing time..

[malaise]

13. Good post

K&R

[ProgressiveEconomist]

17. The EXPLICITLY racist legislative intent of 'felon disfranchisement' laws

passed in various states mostly from the end of Reconstruction through the early 20th century:

From http://www.demos.org/pubs/FD_-_Punishing_at_the_Polls.pdf :

95. "What is it we want to do? Why it is within the limits imposed by the Federal Constitution,to establish white supremacy in this State," said John B. Knox, president of the Alabama convention of 1901. Quoted in Hunter v. Underwood, 471 U.S. 222, 229 (1985).

"This plan of popular suffrage will eliminate the darkey as a political factor in this State in less than five years, so that in no single county ...will there be the least concern felt for the complete supremacy of the white race in the affairs of government," said Carter Glass,delegate to the Virginia convention of 1906. See PAUL LEWINSON,RACE,CLASS,AND PARTY:A HISTORY OF NEGRO SUFFRAGE AND WHITE POLITICS IN THE SOUTH 84-86. Glass told the delegates,"Discrimination! Why,that is precisely what we propose;that exactly,is what the convention was elected for." J. MORGAN KOUSSER, THE SHAPING OF SOUTHERN POLITICS 39 (1974), at 59.

Describing the evolution of white methods of disenfranchising blacks, Ben Tillman of South Carolina said, "w)e took the government away. We stuffed ballot boxes. We shot them.... With that system ... we got tired ourselves. So we called a constitutional convention, and we eliminated ...all of the colored people whom we could." Tillman made this state-- ment to the U.S.Senate. See FRIEDMAN at 507.

"Give me a convention,and I will fix it so that the people shall rule and the Negro shall never be heard from," said Robert Toombs of the new Georgia constitution in 1890. ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION,THE RIGHT TO VOTE:A ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION CONFERENCE 9 (1981). Some changes occurred slightly earlier. Florida,for example, added a constitutional provision disenfranchising for all felonies in 1868, and also added larceny to the short list of enumerated crimes that triggered both disenfranchisement and disqualification from holding public office.

[BlooInBloo]

24. DUers don't care.

[Terri S]

22. so....

criminals (with enough money and power to keep them out of jail) can hold office, but poor, powerless criminals (who more than likely ended up that way because of policies put into place by the first group) shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Welcome to the twilight zone of American politics!

[Jed Dilligan]

35. Nice to see that California is just average

by at least one measure of Nazi police statism.

[porphyrian]

36. Institutionalized Racism and Classism

There is no justice in a system where these biases exist. I believe the quote is "...and justice for all."

[wuushew]

43. kick

:kick: for additional comment

[Onlooker]

46. There's a related aspect that makes it even worse

I once read the gerrymandering takes into account prison and felon populations. That way, the righties can create a Congressional district that includes a lot of minorities who can't vote, but whose numbers count towards representation. That way, the district ends up looking representative, but in fact it's not.